Senator Dick Durbin's ravings this week have set off a firestorm. If you don't know what he spewed, follow the link.

I want to know a few things about this:
How this is going to help the Democrats?
Is this the direction they're going to go for the midterm elections?
Do you agree with him?

This kind of rhetoric is so far above and beyond the pale it defies explanation. How much further can this go before somebody decides they don't care anymore and blows one of them away?

Click to expand...

Well considering that about 2 years of being nice and civil and "hey maybe this isn't so smart an idea..." caused everyone to be called a traitor and anti-American, et. al., this doesn't really surprise me. Americans on the whole are notoriously horrendous at picking up things unless its screamed in their faces.

Remember, there's three sides to every story. The accuser's, the victim's, and the truth.

Too bad no one ever reports the truth no more.

Click to expand...

From your piece -

Washington Post said:

Durbin said his comments had been misinterpreted as an attack on the U.S. military, adding he did not even know who was in charge of the particular interrogation cited in the FBI agent's account. "Sadly, we have a situation here where some in the right-wing media say I've been insulting men and women in uniform," he said. "Nothing could be farther from the truth."

Click to expand...

Actually, I think he's full of it - slandering servicemembers is exactly what he's done. He just didn't realize he was doing it. He tried to make a red-meat speech, and then realized just how badly he put his foot in his mouth when the anti-troop drumbeat started.

I wouldn't be surprised if he thought that liberal boogeyman, the CIA, is in charge of Gitmo... or just never bothered to think before he tried to jump on the bandwagon. Apparently he had planned to hold a news conference, then dithered (wonder who leaned on him?), and then came out with what you read.

Well considering that about 2 years of being nice and civil and "hey maybe this isn't so smart an idea..." caused everyone to be called a traitor and anti-American, et. al., this doesn't really surprise me. Americans on the whole are notoriously horrendous at picking up things unless its screamed in their faces.

Click to expand...

Was that why they started screaming the minute they passed the Patriot Act? Or was it when Shrub won, sorry, STOLE, the first election? I forget... oh, look, Tom Cruise is shtupping his co-Scientologist!

I don't know too much about this situation but I do know that he was comparing our men and women in the armed forces in Guantanamo (sp?) Bay to NAZIS?! I mean wtf? Not only is this very insulting to the people who proudly serive their country, it also puts them in danger. Even if the prisoners were under harsh conditions comparing the situation to that of the Nazi's is ludicrous. The Nazi's slaughtered 6 MILLION Jews along with gypsies, Pols, etc. They had concentration camps, crematories, set up all over the place to enact the "final solution".

Plus they are in Cuba. Of course its gonna be hot, it's gonna be harsh. It's not like they are customers staying at ur local Holiday Inn. They are prisoners. That doesn't mean they should be killed or tortured but that also doesn't mean they need to be in nice little comfy cells with comfortably AC and TVs and recieve 5 star dinners.

What Dick said can have far reaching repercussions. His little speech can easily reach international locals in areas such as say...the entire Middle East. How do you think terrorists are going to react to this? This will just give them more excuses/motivation to slaughter the "evil infidels".

And what's worse is he refuses to see what he's done and refuses to apologize for his remarks. A representative of Dick's (probably a secretary) said that the FBI distorted the truth and tried to blame this whole thing on the FBI...which is ridiculous.

He's my senator, I am sorry to say. I think I am going to start an anti-Durbin web site for when he is up for re-election. What he said doesn't surprise me. What surprises me is that it was him. I thought he was smarter than that.

Was that why they started screaming the minute they passed the Patriot Act? Or was it when Shrub won, sorry, STOLE, the first election? I forget... oh, look, Tom Cruise is shtupping his co-Scientologist!

Click to expand...

Well considering that 1) I wasn't talking about any of these things and 2) Things WERE rather mute about Abu Ghraib (ask the average person at the mall about them and they won't know. Ask about the 2000 election or the Patriot Act and they probably will) here at home, I think my statement still stands.

Well considering that 1) I wasn't talking about any of these things and 2) Things WERE rather mute about Abu Ghraib (ask the average person at the mall about them and they won't know. Ask about the 2000 election or the Patriot Act and they probably will) here at home, I think my statement still stands.

Click to expand...

you're crazy, everyone has an opinion on this one. everyone knows about abu ghraib. anyone who doesn't has been living in a cave.

you're crazy, everyone has an opinion on this one. everyone knows about abu ghraib. anyone who doesn't has been living in a cave.

Click to expand...

Well. If you think about it after the initial media firestorm things kinda died down despite more investigations and what not. That and general apathy. Sure (reasonably) well educated people like us know about it since we have smeg and knightmare posting articles all the time but the average joe at wal-mart?

I doubt he knows.

BUT maybe I'm just being stupid. I think I'll just wash my hands of this. Play nice kids!

Wait wait, back this bus up. Dick Cheney tells America that voting for John Kerry is voting for the terrorists and everyone writes it off, but a Senator uses hyperbole to make a point and suddenly the Democrats are looney?

Wait wait, back this bus up. Dick Cheney tells America that voting for John Kerry is voting for the terrorists and everyone writes it off, but a Senator uses hyperbole to make a point and suddenly the Democrats are looney?

Hah. No, double hah.

Click to expand...

You're still not watching your Daily Show quotient. In the first not-just-attack-the-right piece I've seen in some time, Jon hammers home a pretty good point: invoking Hitler references is for losers.

Of course, he points out a recent conservative, Santorum I think, but I'm surprised he went after the home team that way...

You guys are abolutely wrong. Check your facts - he never compared American soldiers to Hitler. He compared the lack of respect for human rights shown by certain individual soldiers to the lack of respect for human rights shown by other political bodies, like the Nazis. Are you really going to deny this? Because in doing so your stating quite boldly that you approve of the way all the prisoners at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay have been treated. I'm not talking about shutting off the air conditioner, either. Serious sleep deprivation and other physical abuse can cause permanent psychological damage. You're entitled to hold this belief but I'm entitled to recommend that you to scrounge around for some bloody human decency.

Just because we aren't killing trainfuls of Jews doesn't mean that we're on the moral high-ground.

You guys are abolutely wrong. Check your facts - he never compared American soldiers to Hitler. He compared the lack of respect for human rights shown by certain individual soldiers to the lack of respect for human rights shown by other political bodies, like the Nazis. Are you really going to deny this?

Click to expand...

Actually, he DID make that sort of comparison; here's the comment again -

Sen. Durbin said:

If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime -- Pol Pot or others -- that had no concern for human beings. Sadly, that is not the case. This was the action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners.

Click to expand...

He simply didn't realize his language was referencing soldiers in the abstract (as I said earlier - I bet he thought it was CIA), nor was his speech an attempt to refer to all servicemembers. That's the problem with this sort of open-ended hyperbole; you can't always project how far you're flinging the mud.

krzyhobo said:

Because in doing so your stating quite boldly that you approve of the way all the prisoners at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay have been treated. I'm not talking about shutting off the air conditioner, either. Serious sleep deprivation and other physical abuse can cause permanent psychological damage. You're entitled to hold this belief but I'm entitled to recommend that you to scrounge around for some bloody human decency.

Click to expand...

Well, (speaking of ad hom's in the other thread) I'll keep that in mind. And I suppose I'm the resident inhuman monster terrorist Christian, because I don't give a damn about crushing the will of a barbaric, bloodthirsty enemy zealot, or the back pain it causes him in later years.

You need to understand, this isn't new ground. The verbal terrain around these threads is heavily rutted. I'm expecting one of the usual suspects to hop in here pretty quick with a "BUSH LIED CHILDREN DIED" variant.

In the meantime, I'm afraid I don't have much sympathy for Al Quaeda - several thousand dead New Yorkers & Gov't servants might have something to do with that. If the illegal combatants in Gitmo were the POW's or the "Iraqi on the street", as the American left loves to pretend they are, I'd be in agreement. And the conduct in Iraq was far beyond the pale, when these techniques and a few worse were used against Iraqis that weren't identified terrorists, or necessarily even illegal combatants. But the Gitmo crowd is not, and several we've repatriated/released have been captured as terrorists again (no reference to the recent speech by Gonzalez about this subject). Plus, we've been busy trying to empty Gitmo, and the left isn't happy about this either - because if we extradited the detainees, they'd face the death penalty at home.

krzyhobo said:

Just because we aren't killing trainfuls of Jews doesn't mean that we're on the moral high-ground.

Actually, he DID make that sort of comparison; here's the comment again -

If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime -- Pol Pot or others -- that had no concern for human beings. Sadly, that is not the case. This was the action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners."

Click to expand...

I think he shouldn't have mentioned the Nazi's; such a "comparison" always pisses people off, that's asking for trouble.

But I also think the way he said what he did (as quoted above) wasn't that big a deal: "You would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis". Yeah, I bet they did. And if those unacceptable practices take place in Guantanamo Bay, let him comment on those wrongdoings!

So: don't mention the Nazis, but voice your concern on GB-practices.

David.

p.s.: Don't mention the war! I mentioned it once, but I think I got away with it!!! :lol:

Actually, he DID make that sort of comparison; here's the comment again -

He simply didn't realize his language was referencing soldiers in the abstract (as I said earlier - I bet he thought it was CIA), nor was his speech an attempt to refer to all servicemembers. That's the problem with this sort of open-ended hyperbole; you can't always project how far you're flinging the mud.

Click to expand...

I still interpret his statement as a comparison of the acts in question, not of the soldiers themselves. You're correct in your statement that the soldiers were referenced in abstract but assuming his critique of the acts in question is accurate, then those responsible, refered to specifically or in the abstract, should be called into question - soldiers or not.

jmervyn said:

Well, (speaking of ad hom's in the other thread) I'll keep that in mind. And I suppose I'm the resident inhuman monster terrorist Christian, because I don't give a damn about crushing the will of a barbaric, bloodthirsty enemy zealot, or the back pain it causes him in later years.

Click to expand...

We'll have to agree to disagree here. Call me a weakwilled hippy but I prefer to give these prisoners the benefit of the doubt. They hail from areas with essentially no access to unbiased world news. From their point of view they see anonymous western soldiers coming in, killing or capturing their neighbors, bombs being dropped on their friends and family, and their governing bodies and assorted people with power tell them that these are unprovoked attacks on the part of the Western cultures in attempt purely to disrupt their way of life. Were you placed in this situation would you not be willing, even devoted, to doing everything in your power to end this "injustice?"

jmervyn said:

You need to understand, this isn't new ground. The verbal terrain around these threads is heavily rutted. I'm expecting one of the usual suspects to hop in here pretty quick with a "BUSH LIED CHILDREN DIED" variant.

Click to expand...

Agreed. I'd like to take this opportunity to disassociate myself from the average, poorly-informed, liberal-because-Bush-sucks pseudo-politician. These people are the reason the political left is the laughing stock of N. American politics today.

jmervyn said:

In the meantime, I'm afraid I don't have much sympathy for Al Quaeda - several thousand dead New Yorkers & Gov't servants might have something to do with that. If the illegal combatants in Gitmo were the POW's or the "Iraqi on the street", as the American left loves to pretend they are, I'd be in agreement. And the conduct in Iraq was far beyond the pale, when these techniques and a few worse were used against Iraqis that weren't identified terrorists, or necessarily even illegal combatants. But the Gitmo crowd is not, and several we've repatriated/released have been captured as terrorists again (no reference to the recent speech by Gonzalez about this subject).

Click to expand...

You'll find no argument from me that the September 11th terrorist attacks are anything less than absolutely atrocious. I will, however, refer to my earlier comments regarding their lack of unbiased understanding.

jmervyn said:

Plus, we've been busy trying to empty Gitmo, and the left isn't happy about this either - because if we extradited the detainees, they'd face the death penalty at home.

Click to expand...

I'll reserve debate over the death penalty for another time/place.

jmervyn said:

True, but firm language & ice cream isn't going to cut it either.

Click to expand...

Nor is this what I'm suggesting. I'm sure there exists a middle ground between "firm language" and dehumanizing physical and psychological torture.

I think he shouldn't have mentioned the Nazi's; such a "comparison" always pisses people off, that's asking for trouble.

Click to expand...

That's exactly right, and the fact that the comparison was regarding U.S. troops is just more sugar for the Republicans.

DaviddeJong said:

But I also think the way he said what he did (as quoted above) wasn't that big a deal: "You would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis". Yeah, I bet they did.

Click to expand...

Actually, I thought this was hyperbolic. Nazis would have been sticking the terrorist with cattle prods, whipping him, using thumbscrews, and that sort of thing. The Pol Pot and Soviet gulag comparisons weren't even really relevant, because both of those socialist schemes would work you until you died, or kill you uncaringly when they had no further use for you.

The comparison is simply a gut-level appeal that shouldn't have been made, but the problem is that if the Democrats really tried to argue this issue on its merits, they would look even more wrong-minded. The reason they're managing to keep the pressure on is that Shrub continues to do a horrific job of PR and bringing his message to the populace, in part because he knows that if he <did> open Gitmo, the hand-wringers would be screaming from the rooftops and the press would promote them. Covering cavemen who get 3 square meals a day and laze around isn't news; we want riots, scandal, and smut!

My guess is that Shrub thinks the numbers of people who supported him during the election will stick with the GOP because they're patriotic. However, he seems to fail to realize that in handing the GOP successor this issue it is like throwing him (her?) an angry porcupine, and that successor will be up against Sen. Hillary Smoke & Mirrors. A GOP disaster in the making.

Actually, I thought this was hyperbolic. Nazis would have been sticking the terrorist with cattle prods, whipping him, using thumbscrews, and that sort of thing. The Pol Pot and Soviet gulag comparisons weren't even really relevant, because both of those socialist schemes would work you until you died, or kill you uncaringly when they had no further use for you.

Click to expand...

Trying to guess what the Nazis would have done to Islamic terrorists is pretty hard; I guess you're right by saying they would probably get worse treatment. But, I think they used the methods Dick reffered to on civilians/POW's/criminals, so the "comparison" can be accurate. He just shouldn't have made it!

Oh......I can't really comment on those political remarks you made, but I think the war(s) made a lot of "patriots" stick with voting for Shrub (why is everybody calling him that? ). I think his "popularity" is immensely influenced by that.